Skip to main content
Glama
infinitepi-io

Bookmark Manager MCP

by infinitepi-io
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'add' is for creating new bookmarks, while 'list' is for retrieving existing ones. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the task.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use simple, imperative verb names ('add' and 'list') that follow a consistent pattern. This naming style is clear and predictable, with no deviations or mixed conventions, ensuring readability and ease of use.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels under-scoped for a bookmark manager, as it lacks essential operations like update, delete, or search. While the count is minimal, it does not provide complete coverage for basic CRUD functionality, making it borderline too few for the domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for a bookmark manager, missing key operations such as update, delete, and search. This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures when trying to manage bookmarks fully, as users cannot modify or remove entries.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Add a new bookmark' implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether duplicates are allowed, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description states what the tool does but not how it behaves.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is maximally concise at just four words ('Add a new bookmark'). Every word earns its place: 'Add' specifies the action, 'new' clarifies it's creation rather than update, and 'bookmark' identifies the resource. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after adding (success/failure indicators), what permissions are needed, or how the tool integrates with the sibling 'list' tool. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves critical behavioral and contextual gaps unaddressed.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (title, url, category). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or add context about parameter usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'Add a new bookmark' clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('bookmark'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list' tool by specifying a creation action rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what system or context the bookmark is being added to, which prevents a perfect score.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'list', there's an obvious complementary relationship (create vs. retrieve), but the description doesn't mention this or provide any context about appropriate usage scenarios. No prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions are mentioned.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any limitations like rate constraints or authentication needs.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a simple list tool with 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, result format). Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention these to be more complete for agent use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and 'List all bookmarks' appropriately implies no filtering parameters are required, aligning with the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description 'List all bookmarks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('bookmarks'), with 'all' providing scope. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'add' tool, which would require mentioning it's for retrieval rather than creation.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 'add' sibling. It doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

bookmark-manager-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

bookmark-manager-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/infinitepi-io/bookmark-manager-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server